Jharkhand High Court
Damu Maharana Son Of Late Chinta ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 February, 2024
Author: Ratnaker Bhengra
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra, Ambuj Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 761 of 2019
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2009 and the order of sentence dated
19.02.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 99
of 2008 arising out of Manjhari P.S. Case No. 51 of 2007(G.R. No. 650 of 2007).
Damu Maharana son of Late Chinta Maharana, resident of village- Bunumalta, Post Office
and Police Station- Manjhari, District- West Singhbhum ..... ....... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
-------
For the Appellant : Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, APP
-------
Oral Judgment
Reserved on 10.01.2024 Delivered on 01 / 02/2024
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated
18.02.2009 and the order of sentence dated 19.02.2009 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 99 of 2008 arising out of Manjhari
P.S. Case No. 51 of 2007 ( G.R. No. 650 of 2007) whereby and whereunder appellant
has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo RI for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default to undergo further simple
imprisonment of two years.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as per the fardbeyan dated 14.12.2007
of the informant PW-2 Moli Maharana is that on 13.12.2007 at about 7:00 pm
informant's husband Chinta Maharana, who is appellant's father also, was lying in his
house on a cot, when the appellant Damu Maharana, came there and he demanded the
newly purchased blanket, whereupon his father, Chinta Maharana, told him that he had
purchased the blanket for his younger son and he refused to give him the blanket.
Thereafter, there was a quarrel between the father and son for the blanket, and in the
meantime appellant Damu Maharana, took danda from the house and started
assaulting his father as a result Chinta Maharana sustained injuries on the head and he
fell down. Informant, came to the rescue of her husband, but she was pushed away by
the appellant and he continued assaulting the deceased due to which the deceased died
in the courtyard itself and the appellant fled away. Thereafter, the daughter of the
deceased, Sita Maharana came and both mother and daughter put the dead body on the
cot. Informant further stated that due to night she could not inform anybody and on the
next morning, village Munda was informed.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Manjhari P.S. Case No. 51 of
2007 dated 14.12.2007 was registered under section 302 of IPC against the appellant.
After investigation charge sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offence was
taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charge was framed under
section 302 IPC against the appellant and trial was held. At the conclusion of trial
appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, hence, this appeal.
4. Prosecution had examined altogether 9 witnesses out of whom PW-2 Moli
Maharana, is the informant of the case and wife of the deceased; PW-1 Sita Maharana
and PW-6 Manju Maharana are the daughters of the informant and both are hostile
witnesses; PW-3 Sashi Bhushan Kunkal and PW-7 Landa Singh Kunkal are the
Munda of Village and Manki of the area respectively; PW-8 is Harendra Prasad
Choudhary, who is the Investigating officer of the case ; PW-9 is Dr. Dhananjay
Kumar Mishra and PW-4 and PW-5 are hearsay witnesses.
5. PW-2 Moli Maharana, is the informant and wife of the deceased. PW-2
had stated in her evidence that her husband Chinta Maharana died in the year 2007 in
the month of December. Her husband was sleeping in the house when her son, Damu
Maharana, murdered his father. Informant further stated that she cannot say by what
weapon, her husband was assaulted by the accused because she was inside the house,
but, when she came to the rescue of her husband, there was nothing in the hands of
his son. In her cross-examination, informant stated that on the date of occurrence, she
was ill and she was sleeping and she had not seen the accused assaulting her husband
rather when she came to save her husband, her husband had already fallen on the
ground.
6. PW-1 Sita Maharana and PW-6 Manju Maharana, are the daughter of the
informant. They have stated in their evidence that when they came to the house, they
saw the dead body of their father, but they have no knowledge as to how their father
died. Both PW-1 and PW-6 were declared hostile.
7. PW-3 Sashi Bhushan Kunkal and PW-7 Landa Singh Kunkal are the
Munda of Village and Manki of the area respectively. PW-3 has proved his signatures
on the fardbeyan, on the inquest report and seizure list which were marked as Ext.-1,
Ext.-1/1 and Ext.-1/2 respectively. PW-7 has proved his signature on the inquest report
and seizure list which were marked as Ext.-1/3 and Ext.-1/4 respectively.
8. PW-9 is Dr. Dhananjay Kumar Mishra, who conducted the postmortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased and had found following injuries on the
person of the deceased :
On External Examination doctor had found the following ante mortem
injuries:-
(i) On the head vertex scalp was bruised measuring 1" x 1"
(ii) On lateral side of left forearm swelling and hamotoma measuring 3"x2"
(iii) A small bruise on the lateral side of right forearm measuring 1"x1".
On Internal Examination doctor had found the following ante mortem injuries:
(i) Spleen fractured and lacerated
(ii)Left sided Ribs No. 5 to 9 fractured.
(iii)Abdominal cavity full of blood.
(iv)Right sided Ribs No. 6 to 9 fractured.
(v)Heart- Empty and intact
(vi)Lungs- non-congested, pale and intact.
(vii)Stomach contained semi-digested food.
Opinion regarding death:- Due to above mentioned external and internal
injuries leading to massive haemorrhage particularly internal injury no.1 is
sufficient to cause death due to massive internal haemorrhage which leads to
shock and cardio respiratory failure. Injuries are caused by impact of hard and
blunt substance, may be lathi or danda.
9. PW-8 is Harendra Prasad Choudhary, the Investigating officer of the case.
PW-8 has stated about fardbeyan to be in his handwriting and signature, which was
marked as Ext.-2. Investigating officer has proved the inquest report and seizure list of
recovery of blood stained earth and bamboo stick, which were marked as Ext. - 3 and
Ext.-4 respectively.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant Ms. Chaitali C. Sinha, has
submitted that there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. The
witnesses who have been examined are not eye witness except the informant PW-2
Moli Maharana and none of the witnesses who have been examined are the eye
witnesses to the said occurrence. However, in her cross-examination informant has
stated that at the time of occurrence she was ill and was sleeping and has not seen the
accused committing the murder of the deceased and informant has also not stated
about the weapon used by the accused. All the witnesses are either the relatives of the
deceased or co-villagers of the informant. Learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that other family members i.e. PW-1 and PW-6, who are the daughters of
the deceased have been declared hostile. PW-5 who is the brother of the deceased has
also said that he has no knowledge of the occurrence and hence, he is a hearsay
witness. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the doctor who had
conducted the postmortem examination has clearly stated that there was no external
injury on the body of deceased corresponding to the fracture of the ribs which is
evident from the perusal of the postmortem report i.e. Exhibit-6, it is apparent that
there is only one injury on the head of the deceased and therefore it is clear that the
accused never had any intention to kill his father. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of the
accused and the accused had not fled from the place of occurrence. There was no
motive for the accused to kill his father and in fact appellant did not make any effort
to flee from the place of occurrence and it has come in the deposition of witnesses that
he was in an inebriated condition.
11. On the other hand learned counsel for the State, learned APP, has
submitted that informant PW-2 Moli Maharana has supported the prosecution case.
Informant tried to save her husband, and gave information about occurrence to the
village Munda and Manki. Her reiteration in her cross-examination is that of a wife
and mother which is natural. Village Munda PW-3 Shashi Bhushan Kunkal and Manki
of area PW-7 Landa Singh Kunkal have also supported the prosecution case. PW-1
Sita Maharana and PW-6 Manju Maharana, turning hostile is natural one, as they are
the own sisters of the appellant. The Investigating officer had visited the place of
occurrence and he has stated about the place of occurrence in his evidence.
12. After hearing both counsels for the appellant as well as counsel for the
State, it is noted that this is a case of no witness supporting the prosecution case. The
wife of the deceased and informant of the case PW-2 Moli Maharana, who was in her
house at the alleged time of occurrence has deposed in her cross-examination that on
the date of occurrence she was ill and she was also sleeping and she had not seen the
appellant assaulting her husband, rather when she came to save her husband, her
husband had already fallen on the ground. Informant has also stated that she can not
say as to what was written by the police in her fardbeyan. PW-1 Sita Maharana and
PW-6 Manju Maharana, both are daughters of the informant and they are hostile
witnesses and PW-5 Kurso Maharana, is the brother of the deceased, and he has also
deposed that he has no idea as to how his brother died. The remaining witnesses are all
hearsay witnesses and thus have not witnessed commission of the crime by
themselves. Hence, on the basis of the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, there is clearly
a lack of definitive evidence against the appellant for proving charge against the
appellant under section 302 of IPC.
13. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2009 and the order
of sentence dated 19.02.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum
at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 99 of 2008 arising out of Manjhari P.S. Case No. 51 of 2007 (
G.R. No. 650 of 2007) cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. Appellant Damu
Maharana is in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any
other case, on receipt of this order.
14. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 761 of 2019 is allowed.
15. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned
through FAX.
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 01 /02 /2024
Sharda/NAFR
